]]>By: Mauricio Gibrinhttp://games-blog.pairodicegames.com/game-articles/magic-the-gathering-without-lands/comment-page-2#comment-93741
Tue, 17 Jan 2012 21:23:56 +0000http://games-blog.pairodicegames.com/?p=175#comment-93741We have succesfully tried the following formula to deal with land screw/land glut: each player draw 10 cards, then choses and reshuffles 3 of them back on their libraries. If unhappy, players can discard them all, reshuffle the deck, then draw 9 cards and keep 6, and so on.

I know it might make some killer-combos come more easily, but it works just fine with my group (maybe because we only play limited).

Best regards!

Mauricio

]]>By: Mana in Magic the Gatheringhttp://games-blog.pairodicegames.com/game-articles/magic-the-gathering-without-lands/comment-page-2#comment-84513
Mon, 05 Dec 2011 07:07:29 +0000http://games-blog.pairodicegames.com/?p=175#comment-84513[…] In Magic The GatheringMana In Magic The Gathering 106. Mana 106.1. Mana is the main resource of the game players spend the…e, blue, black, red, green and colorless. 106.2. Mana is represented by mana symbols (see rule […]
]]>By: Scotthttp://games-blog.pairodicegames.com/game-articles/magic-the-gathering-without-lands/comment-page-2#comment-11642
Tue, 13 Jul 2010 11:42:56 +0000http://games-blog.pairodicegames.com/?p=175#comment-11642I prefer to be able to turn a colored spell into a land of the appropriate type. For those who want a slightly more randomized land draw when channeling, your variant should be fun.

I have yet to see a situation, playing with my group, where repeated channeling of spells would be worthwhile to try and find a specific land, but I wouldn’t be surprised if such examples existed.

Also when it comes to cards like Oona, I wrote another post detailing how we chose to handle that. Somehwat similar to your method, with a 2:5 ratio being closer to what we typically played before channeling.

]]>By: koshttp://games-blog.pairodicegames.com/game-articles/magic-the-gathering-without-lands/comment-page-2#comment-11486
Thu, 08 Jul 2010 21:15:19 +0000http://games-blog.pairodicegames.com/?p=175#comment-11486I’d like to say thanks for introducing me to this variant, it has helped make casual games of MtG a lot more fun. After a lot of playtesting, the variant my playgroup follows is this: Each player has a 60-card spell deck and a 20-card land deck which can consist of basic as well as non-basic lands of any type. Channeling works as follows:

*Whenever you can play a sorcery, you may play the channeling land ability:
Remove a non-land card in your hand from the game: Add the top card of your land deck to your hand.

In order to discourage the procedure of a player discarding card after card until he finds his “holy grail” non-basic land, we added the following rule:
The channeling ability can be played only once each turn, with the exception of each player’s first turn, during which it can be played any number of times.

Finally, in order to avoid the overpowering of cards like Oona (not to mention Mind Funeral, which pretty much wins the game) we also added the following rule:

For the purposes of effects that include randomly drawing cards from your opponent’s or your own library and when those effects depend on whether a spell or a land card is drawn, roll a die before each single card draw: on a 1-2, draw a card from the land deck; on a 3-6, draw a card from the regular deck.

This roughly represents the 1:3 land to spell ratio that a normal deck would have.

]]>By: Scotthttp://games-blog.pairodicegames.com/game-articles/magic-the-gathering-without-lands/comment-page-2#comment-9213
Sat, 24 Apr 2010 14:53:26 +0000http://games-blog.pairodicegames.com/?p=175#comment-9213I think it goes without saying that, in most circumstances, card drawing in Magic is pretty desirable. Personally I feel even if it becomes a bit more advantageous than without Channeling Land it’s a price worth paying to reap the other rewards 🙂
]]>By: Jerry Hankensonhttp://games-blog.pairodicegames.com/game-articles/magic-the-gathering-without-lands/comment-page-2#comment-8968
Wed, 21 Apr 2010 15:52:40 +0000http://games-blog.pairodicegames.com/?p=175#comment-8968Note that any card being a land or itself makes _every_ card inherently more powerful. This makes card draw much stronger than it normally is. It’s always safe to draw up to maximum hand size because you can turn one of your cards into a land next turn.
]]>By: Benhttp://games-blog.pairodicegames.com/game-articles/magic-the-gathering-without-lands/comment-page-2#comment-6704
Thu, 11 Feb 2010 07:15:44 +0000http://games-blog.pairodicegames.com/?p=175#comment-6704So question about the infinate mana on, what about card like corrupt where you need the mana to play it to make it strong
]]>By: Billhttp://games-blog.pairodicegames.com/game-articles/magic-the-gathering-without-lands/comment-page-2#comment-5980
Wed, 30 Dec 2009 01:09:16 +0000http://games-blog.pairodicegames.com/?p=175#comment-5980We hate building decks almost as much as we hate mana issues so we’ve devised the following:

– we roll a die to determine who gets the first color (or passes) and then roll a die to determine the first color being played

And now that we’ve finally found a good way to play lands, only drawing from our land pool when channeling as necessary.

At 9 health, or lower, one can draw from the multi-color / artifact pile instead of their own library, at a cost of 1 health. At the end of the game, those cards are shuffled back into “the pile” and we start anew.

This got us around: building decks, calculating land/spell ratios, and figuring out who gets what big bad card from “the pile” and why. We enjoy the game for the game. The cards are good fun to collect… but we wanted random enjoyment and a change in strategy from game to game.

I’m not sure channeling a spell for multiple lands would work for my play style, as it changes the game from its original design further than I’d wish. Probably “breaks” a few more cards and abilities (retrace has been mentioned) than I’d prefer.

In the variant I describe in the post, the “reward” for channeling multicolor spells is just the ability to select a land from among more than one land pool.

However giving multiple lands in exchange for a colored spell sounds like it could be a boon to multicolor decks, and even granting two lands for spells with a single color seems like going for a bit more laid back variant, players have to sacrifice fewer spells (and make fewer difficult decisions) in order to play what they keep. If that’s what works for you and your group, I say go for it.

Also, you mentioned a pile of rares… have you considered going through those cards with an eye toward building a Big Deck?

]]>By: Billhttp://games-blog.pairodicegames.com/game-articles/magic-the-gathering-without-lands/comment-page-2#comment-5942
Mon, 28 Dec 2009 04:29:58 +0000http://games-blog.pairodicegames.com/?p=175#comment-5942And now I’m toying with the following idea: every uncast spell in one’s hand is worth at least 1 draw from the land pool, but for every unique color in a spell’s casting cost, another land may be drawn.

So an artifact is always 1 draw per the rule because there are no colors in its casting cost.

“Quest for the Gravelord” (casting cost is B) would be 2 draws (1 per the rule + 1 for B).

This idea would mean fewer sacrifices and would reward the player for sacrificing a potentially interesting multi-colored card.

I’m curious your opinion on this idea.

I’ve got a massive deck of rare artifacts and rare multi-color cards which are available to be drawn after certain events happen within a game. Makes it interesting having all sorts of big, bad vampires and dragons fighting it out… or at least staring each other down!

And for the record, I’ve convinced the peeps I play with to start with 7 spells and abandon the 6 + 1 basic land as I’d mentioned in my earlier post.

Thanks again for a great resource like this.

]]>By: Scotthttp://games-blog.pairodicegames.com/game-articles/magic-the-gathering-without-lands/comment-page-2#comment-5938
Sun, 27 Dec 2009 16:44:13 +0000http://games-blog.pairodicegames.com/?p=175#comment-5938It sounds like you’re cutting down on first turn decisions ever so slightly, starting with six spells and one basic land in hand. Personally I favor more decision-making opportunities (and go for a full seven spells), but house rules are all about the style of play that you and your group enjoy the most.

I too find that I play fewer lands this way, with some decks I may not need more than four – which allows me to play a few more spells; other decks use seven, maybe eight, but almost never more. Those dead late-game turns where you do nothing but draw and play your 13th land are certainly a thing of the past.

Thanks for the comment Bill!

]]>By: Billhttp://games-blog.pairodicegames.com/game-articles/magic-the-gathering-without-lands#comment-5932
Sun, 27 Dec 2009 04:33:34 +0000http://games-blog.pairodicegames.com/?p=175#comment-5932I was hoping to find a variant/house rule that would take care of the glut/screw issues. For the record, I have the worst luck of everyone so I guess I was looking for a variant which might help me enjoy the game more.

This, by far, is the best discussion going with regard to the topic. With that said, my game consists of the following: a library of spells (55+ cards) and a land pool. The land pool consists of 18 basics (only playing single color) and 9 non-basics which make that color and do something else, and usually come in tapped. Each player begins with 6 spells and 1 basic land (which allows red to cast the annoying 1 red-mana-cost haste critters on its first turn).

Any spell can be converted into a draw from the land pool, regardless of casting cost… the card itself is payment for delving into the land pool. And as you suggested this conversion and draw is at sorcery speed and timing during a players main phases.

So if you’ve got artifacts and want to spend/convert them in this way, they also count as 1 draw from the land pool. Cards used in this way are removed from the game.

Interestingly enough, we’ve found that one can usually play a game with about 7-8 lands and only having to sacrifice that many spells makes it enjoyable and strategic, especially in the beginning.

Thanks for everyone’s comments thusfar and if anyone sees where my gameplay might be an issue, please let me know. Thx in advance.

]]>By: Scotthttp://games-blog.pairodicegames.com/game-articles/magic-the-gathering-without-lands#comment-3242
Wed, 26 Aug 2009 01:44:10 +0000http://games-blog.pairodicegames.com/?p=175#comment-3242If I understand you correctly Jonathan, it sounds like you’re after a variant that would let you get a free land each turn, without channeling/removing a card from your hand.

That sounds like another reasonable way to approach the land screw problem. I think the thing that would give me pause is getting land free without giving up a card in your hand, as I enjoy the economic conflict, if you will, of managing your resources (cards) and having to choose how best to use them, when to trade them for land.

There’s also the balance to consider, which might be tilted by gaining a free land each turn. Perhaps with some cards and situations more than others.

Still I’m game for house rules, let us know how it works out!

]]>By: Jonathanhttp://games-blog.pairodicegames.com/game-articles/magic-the-gathering-without-lands#comment-3241
Tue, 25 Aug 2009 21:08:35 +0000http://games-blog.pairodicegames.com/?p=175#comment-3241I was Google searching Magic land variants and came across this site. Except for the two deck (one spells, one land) variant, none of them have the simplicity I was looking for. You see, all I wanted to find was if someone had already created an unofficial variant with this rule — “In lieu of playing a land this turn, you may get one basic land from outside the game and play it.” This negates mana screw, allows nonbasic lands to be kept in the main deck for those that choose to play them, allows smooth multicolor play, and encourages a simple deck with only spells, no lands. It does minimize land destruction, so perhaps the land should come into play tapped? Anyway, have fun playing.
]]>By: Scotthttp://games-blog.pairodicegames.com/game-articles/magic-the-gathering-without-lands#comment-3233
Sun, 09 Aug 2009 19:25:26 +0000http://games-blog.pairodicegames.com/?p=175#comment-3233Minor note: while he doesn’t exactly say that Magic’s basic lands were a game design mistake, Richard Garfield briefly mentions his dislike of their prevalence in this interview looking back at the design of Jyhad.
]]>By: Mana in Magic: The Gathering « The Interbloghttp://games-blog.pairodicegames.com/game-articles/magic-the-gathering-without-lands#comment-3219
Wed, 05 Aug 2009 17:36:03 +0000http://games-blog.pairodicegames.com/?p=175#comment-3219[…] radical solution, but completely eliminates the problem. There’s a good blog post about it here. To summarize, Channeling Land works as […]
]]>By: Scotthttp://games-blog.pairodicegames.com/game-articles/magic-the-gathering-without-lands#comment-3079
Thu, 11 Jun 2009 01:44:45 +0000http://games-blog.pairodicegames.com/?p=175#comment-3079While it’s not the focus of this post, it does mention adapting land-searching abilities using land pools. That’s also what my group has settled on, and it seems cards with land-searching abilities work fine for us.

If you’re talking about a more obscure ability which flips cards from the top of your library and does something based on the card’s type, that’s another story. Oona was an example of one such card for us, and required its own house rule.

Thanks for the comment Ravious, it’s good to hear from someone else who’s playing this variant!

]]>By: Ravioushttp://games-blog.pairodicegames.com/game-articles/magic-the-gathering-without-lands#comment-3073
Mon, 08 Jun 2009 19:12:01 +0000http://games-blog.pairodicegames.com/?p=175#comment-3073My wife and I play this, but with one twist. Because I don’t like the fact that it does hurt decksearching, like landcycling, etc. You can only Channel Land if you have not played any spells or abilities for that main phase, and once you channel the land your main phase immediately ends.
]]>By: Scotthttp://games-blog.pairodicegames.com/game-articles/magic-the-gathering-without-lands#comment-1944
Sun, 17 Aug 2008 15:09:16 +0000http://games-blog.pairodicegames.com/?p=175#comment-1944By the way, I have a new post up with some thoughts and observations from the first couple weeks of playing Channeling Land.
]]>By: Scotthttp://games-blog.pairodicegames.com/game-articles/magic-the-gathering-without-lands#comment-1943
Sun, 17 Aug 2008 15:06:53 +0000http://games-blog.pairodicegames.com/?p=175#comment-1943Krystofer- I would agree with Jeremy and Josh. If you’re really set on some kind of co-op Magic variant, I’m not familiar with any that would be good. You could adapt one of the solitaire variants, but I’m not sure how much fun that would be to play… if you come up with an interesting variant of your own let us know!
]]>By: Joshhttp://games-blog.pairodicegames.com/game-articles/magic-the-gathering-without-lands#comment-1939
Thu, 14 Aug 2008 13:22:17 +0000http://games-blog.pairodicegames.com/?p=175#comment-1939When you change a game, any game, you are going to end up with issues. Sometimes these issues are worth it and other times they are not.

Channeling land also ruins certain cards that need to draw lands to operate as well.

]]>By: Mikehttp://games-blog.pairodicegames.com/game-articles/magic-the-gathering-without-lands#comment-1938
Wed, 13 Aug 2008 18:01:06 +0000http://games-blog.pairodicegames.com/?p=175#comment-1938It should be noted that certain cards like Oona, Queen of the Fae are grossly overpowered in a channeling environment, as there is 0% chance of an opponent drawing a land using her special ability…whereas a “normal” Magic deck consists of 35-45% land.

Also, given the multi-coloring that is such a huge part of Shadowmoor/Eventide, getting her ability to “land” (heh) successfully is already too easy (dare I say over powered).

I really believe they should have raised the cost of her ability or made her tap to use it (or both). Even not removing the cards from the game, instead placing them on the botton of the library, would be a little help.

]]>By: Joshhttp://games-blog.pairodicegames.com/game-articles/magic-the-gathering-without-lands#comment-1937
Wed, 13 Aug 2008 17:44:48 +0000http://games-blog.pairodicegames.com/?p=175#comment-1937Hehe, I liked Warhammer Quest, back in the day. But yeah… it is pretty bad. I highly recommend Pandemic for co-op gaming. Or for something more dynamic (read wacky) Arkham Horror.

Co-Op Magic on the other hand… interesting but I’m not sure how to make it work and be interesting without turning into two people playing on a team against a gold fish.